Why does Bronco make comments like this?

"Mendenall went on to mention that those who go on other trips against the coaches’ wishes but still sign with BYU end up as failures within the BYU program. "



http://byu.scout.com/2/943830.html



I can see where he is coming from, but I wish he just wouldn't say things like this out loud. Whether it is his intention or not, it can be interpreted the wrong way.

He deliberately makes these types of comments. He's a smart guy and if you take a look at the average BYU (or any college class) the retention issues in the past have been a big deal.

What he's finding, is that guys that are 100% sold and committed to BYU stay, and contribute, while guys that they have to beg and plead to come to the Y don't last for one reason or another.



Retention is a major issue for all schools and all recruiting classes. Notre Dame used to regularly recruit Kansas City, recently several of their 4-5 star athletes came from my area and I know of 3 that never graduated there and 1 in particlar that ended up transferring to Northern Iowa.



This is why grading a recruiting class now is left to the "pizza boys"... because the true test of a recruiting class is how many finish and the teams record in the time that they were there.



Bronco is just setting the table for the future when he makes comments about being fully invested, the amount of kids that dont' go on missions when they are recruited by BYU and go elsewhere, and now when and if they are truly commited to BYU after they commit to us.



The dividends will be plenty and the price is only offended families and recruits that weren't fully invested or interested in BYU.



If the Teos and Schwenkes want to be wined and dined and told how great they are and how they're going to start from day 1, that they can have the keys to the city, etc. etc. etc. then let them go. Bronco is building a team and yep.... there's no "I" in team.



He knows how good this class is, and he knows how much in demand BYU football scholarships are going to be in the future; what he's doing is sending a message that you truly better be fully invested and stay that way or you're not the right fit for this program.



What he's also doing is setting the table for a long long tenure as the head coach of BYU. You cannot ask these kids to bleed blue for the rest of your lives, if you're not willing to do it. Bronco is a BYU lifer... he's mentioned as much when he laughs at the stresses of other head coaching jobs. This is great news. If he's asking these kids why they want to be here, he better know the answer for himself, and I believe he does.

jonnylingo wrote:
"Mendenall went on to mention that those who go on other trips against the coaches’ wishes but still sign with BYU end up as failures within the BYU program. "



http://byu.scout.com/2/943830.html



I can see where he is coming from, but I wish he just wouldn't say things like this out loud. Whether it is his intention or not, it can be interpreted the wrong way.

I don't have TBS membership,do you feel comfortable paraphrasing what the context was in which this quote was made?That probably makes a big difference,and is the difference between be merely observational in nature vs.polemic.

craigoscarson, I agree with you, but while there is no "I" in team, there is a "me" in there somewhere.



Well, there ain't no "we" either:



[youtube]3BkIh1R5utY[/youtube]

clemdiggitydog1 wrote:

"Mendenall went on to mention that those who go on other trips against the coaches’ wishes but still sign with BYU end up as failures within the BYU program. "



http://byu.scout.com/2/943830.html



I can see where he is coming from, but I wish he just wouldn't say things like this out loud. Whether it is his intention or not, it can be interpreted the wrong way.

I don't have TBS membership,do you feel comfortable paraphrasing what the context was in which this quote was made?That probably makes a big difference,and is the difference between be merely observational in nature vs.polemic.

Probably not, but Craig pretty much explains what Bronco is getting when he makes comments like that. Bronco understands that byu has high standards in every aspect of the college experience and that only those who are truly committed thrive in that type of environment.

I think these are the types that Bronco wants to keep off the team.



http://www.breitbart.tv/132-the-number-of-times-obama-refers-to-himself-in-one-speech/

Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, and other schools seem to have no problem winning with kids who look around. Because they can play football. Obviously, BYU is a different school with different rules than those state schools, so that is a factor. Getting top talent is not enough if the talent gets kicked out for an HC violation. SO I think Bronco is saying he wants kids committed to BYU because that means they are committed to the school and living the HC. Kids who are iffy are probably iffy because of the HC, and knowing they may not want to live it since it is not easy for everyone based on how they were raised. Bronco is not just looking for kids who commit to BYU to play football, but for kids who commit to BYU and live live the HC and respect the underpinnings of he university. That is not a usual expectation in CFB, and BYU does demand more that way. Similar to a service academy in that regard.

It's tough enough for many kids who aren't used to it to come to BYU and follow the honor code and live in the atmosphere there. You start thinking about "what if I went to this school or that school..." and you eventually end up leaving. We need kids that want to be at BYU and will make themselves comfortable living the way that BYU and Bronco expect of them.

I think what Bronco does makes good sense because while there are those that were "iffy" and they made it, there have been too many that came into his program and didn't make it. Those that have logged more than a year in the program and then wash out, those are costly mistakes, especially if they hadn't contributed yet. The Mantangi Tongas of the world that at least earned their scholarships before they left are one thing, but when you lose an athlete that probably would have contributed significantly in his junior and senior years and now he's gone after his freshman or sophmore years, you just lost your whole investment of time and resources and you have to start all over. We've seen enough of that at BYU under Bronco and I think the light bulb has finally gone off in his head and he understands that to not been in those situations, he has to recruit the way he is now doing it and the rewards outpace the losses of recruits that might have tried to make it at BYU, but don't.

So I got a question for y'all. Did Apo pay BYU a visit after giving a verbal to Texas? I read that on my site, and it makes it seem very hypocritical for Bronco to let that happen, then take the scholarship away from Schwenky. However, I'm not sure if it's true, so I figured I'd ask y'all.

By all accounts that I have read, Apo did verbal to Texas first. But he then had his mind swayed by Jake Heaps while at a camp together, and he did not visit BYU until after deciding to change his commitment. Heaps recruited him to BYU, not Bronco. Heaps also recruited Zac Stout to BYU. So Heaps gets as much credit for this class as Bronco in that regard.



But based upon the Schwenke situation, it is a fair question. Having said that, I see no problem with recruiting kids away from other schools. Happens all the time. It is up to them to decide whether they want to pull the schollie offer or not, just as it was up to BYU to pull the offer from Kona. Since Kona never took an official visit to BYU, and did not show for recruit day, sounds as if BYU took the right approach with him.

SO ... another question.



Of Apo, Bronco said "He ended up changing a commitment from Texas to BYU and he came for the right reasons — that's all the core values and principles that we embrace here and to catch a lot of passes from Jake Heaps or whomever the quarterback is. They're going to be a lot of fun to be with."



Sounds like Apo was commited to Heaps, not BYU ... so how is that the right reason?



Ultimately, (I'm going to get demonized for this) I think Bronco is a coach. He's not deity, or a prophet, he's a coach. He'll take any talent that will come regardless of them breaking commitments to other schools, and he'll use ultimatems and other tactics to get talent that has committed to him to stay. There's nothing wrong with that, it's being a coach. The issue I have is when he lets slide little comments about the kids commitment when leaving BYU. It is very hypocritical, but it's his job. Get all the talent you can, and try to keep it.



Once again ... I'm not badmouthing bronco here, unless you feel that calling him anything short of deity is an insult.

Lawboy wrote:
By all accounts that I have read, Apo did verbal to Texas first. But he then had his mind swayed by Jake Heaps while at a camp together, and he did not visit BYU until after deciding to change his commitment. Heaps recruited him to BYU, not Bronco. Heaps also recruited Zac Stout to BYU. So Heaps gets as much credit for this class as Bronco in that regard.



But based upon the Schwenke situation, it is a fair question. Having said that, I see no problem with recruiting kids away from other schools. Happens all the time. It is up to them to decide whether they want to pull the schollie offer or not, just as it was up to BYU to pull the offer from Kona. Since Kona never took an official visit to BYU, and did not show for recruit day, sounds as if BYU took the right approach with him.

I think you are right lawman. They are not the same situation as long as Apo did verbal to BYU before taking a trip. Talk about a leap of faith though. Would you really verbal before actually visiting the place? Maybe he's got relatives in UT and has seen it all before. Who knows.

ttexastim wrote:
SO ... another question.



Of Apo, Bronco said "He ended up changing a commitment from Texas to BYU and he came for the right reasons — that's all the core values and principles that we embrace here and to catch a lot of passes from Jake Heaps or whomever the quarterback is. They're going to be a lot of fun to be with."



Sounds like Apo was commited to Heaps, not BYU ... so how is that the right reason?



Ultimately, (I'm going to get demonized for this) I think Bronco is a coach. He's not deity, or a prophet, he's a coach. He'll take any talent that will come regardless of them breaking commitments to other schools, and he'll use ultimatems and other tactics to get talent that has committed to him to stay. There's nothing wrong with that, it's being a coach. The issue I have is when he lets slide little comments about the kids commitment when leaving BYU. It is very hypocritical, but it's his job. Get all the talent you can, and try to keep it.



Once again ... I'm not badmouthing bronco here, unless you feel that calling him anything short of deity is an insult.

i agree with you. Bronco turning the commitment game into something more than it is is stupid. Its a game until LOI day. He is playing the best way he knows how by giving a ton of weight to the verbal commit.

Here's where I have to fault a coach who bars nothing in bringing in a recruit:



per SLTrib:



"The Frogs [TCU] lost four-star running back Josh Huff to Oregon on signing day, after Huff also had originally committed to Utah before pledging to TCU."



Thank goodness Bronco has standards as who wants a kid who decommited somewhere, which is okay if you do it with time for the original team to make ammends, but then to have committed to TCU and on signing day sign with another team. Shame on Oregon's coach for doing something like that just for the sake of football and football only. It's hard for a coach like that to preach integrity to a team when he allows things like this. I don't care if this is just a kid, he's now been taught that you say what the person standing in front of you wants to hear and then do actually what you want to. I don't want those kinds of players on my team, but that sounds consistent to the caliber of some of Oregon's recruits of late.

Lawboy wrote:
Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, and other schools seem to have no problem winning with kids who look around. Because they can play football. Obviously, BYU is a different school with different rules than those state schools, so that is a factor......

For the record, SC is not a State school - but the point is the same; in a discussion of student selection and conduct, it is much more like a State School than a private religious institution (which it is).



And I thought EM_Puma makes an excellent point here:

The Mantangi Tongas of the world that at least earned their scholarships before they left are one thing, but when you lose an athlete that probably would have contributed significantly in his junior and senior years and now he's gone after his freshman or sophmore years, you just lost your whole investment of time and resources and you have to start all over.

It seems to me that BYU has more nationall prominence now than it ever has - for many understandable reasons. And the 'peculiar' nature of the program is very visible, and a little more understood by people around the country. And as a result student athletes from many religious and cultural backgrounds recognize it as a place to play very respectable D-1 ball and still make an important statement about character and the myriad other opportunities a higher education offers.



I think there are a lot of guys out there with loads of talent and potential who see that the 'mold' of a BYU athlete is not necessarily 'Mormon', but 'of a certain moral fiber.' I think there are alot of them out there. I think Bronco is taking the right tact to attract them.

I'll correctmyself and acknowledge my misunderstanding.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:
For the record, SC is not a State school - but the point is the same; in a discussion of student selection and conduct, it is much more like a State School than a private religious institution (which it is).

I looked it up real quick:

The university is no longer affiliated with the Methodist Church, having severed formal ties in 1952.

ttexastim wrote:



Ultimately, (I'm going to get demonized for this) I think Bronco is a coach. He's not deity, or a prophet, he's a coach. He'll take any talent that will come regardless of them breaking commitments to other schools, and he'll use ultimatems and other tactics to get talent that has committed to him to stay. There's nothing wrong with that, it's being a coach. The issue I have is when he lets slide little comments about the kids commitment when leaving BYU. It is very hypocritical, but it's his job. Get all the talent you can, and try to keep it.



Once again ... I'm not badmouthing bronco here, unless you feel that calling him anything short of deity is an insult.

I think coaches will use whatever tactics they can to get kids to honor their verbals. Bama does it. LSU does it, as do many other schools. And if a kid does de-commit, it is obviously right for a coach to say they were not 100% committed, because clearly they were not. TCU just took a few players who had verbaled to the big boys. All credit to them. It is part of the job, and a part coaches mostly dislike.



I also think BYU had the luxury of pulling the offer with Kona because BYU had offered too many kids. And Kona never came on an official visit, although he did summer camp at BYU, so he knew the place and the coaches. I just think it is recruiting, and then Bronco trying to build a stronger connection with the players that did come to BYU, because they are here. And seeing how the Kaveinga, Manti Te'o and now Schwenke and Jamora situations played out, I think Bronco has a good feel for it now, and pulling a schollie is the right approach if the kid knows it upfront. And now kids know Bronco means he will when he says it will happen. No exceptions. Sets the right tone.

Lawboy wrote:

I think coaches will use whatever tactics they can to get kids to honor their verbals. Bama does it. LSU does it, as do many other schools. And if a kid does de-commit, it is obviously right for a coach to say they were not 100% committed, because clearly they were not. TCU just took a few players who had verbaled to the big boys. All credit to them. It is part of the job, and a part coaches mostly dislike.



I also think BYU had the luxury of pulling the offer with Kona because BYU had offered too many kids. And Kona never came on an official visit, although he did summer camp at BYU, so he knew the place and the coaches. I just think it is recruiting, and then Bronco trying to build a stronger connection with the players that did come to BYU, because they are here. And seeing how the Kaveinga, Manti Te'o and now Schwenke and Jamora situations played out, I think Bronco has a good feel for it now, and pulling a schollie is the right approach if the kid knows it upfront. And now kids know Bronco means he will when he says it will happen. No exceptions. Sets the right tone.

Agreed. However, Bronco does not just make a comment saying they weren't committed. He also gives vague hints to not living honor code and what not. Those comments fuel all kinds of crap about a kid. I think Bronco does it because that's what the fanbase wants to hear. That's the only real issue I see with him. He's a great coach, and knows how to win at BYU. It's the coddling of the BYU fans that drives me nuts. (yes ... like a steering wheel on the front of me pants!) LOL.

ttexastim wrote:
I think Bronco does it because that's what the fanbase wants to hear. That's the only real issue I see with him. He's a great coach, and knows how to win at BYU. It's the coddling of the BYU fans that drives me nuts. (yes ... like a steering wheel on the front of me pants!) LOL.

Does coddling the fans include calling them ignorant and uneducated about football? It has seemed like Bronco has actually had an antigonistic relationship with the fans this past season. I would guess that Bronco drops lines about recruits that go elsewhere not being able to meet the honor code to plant seeds for future recruiting. Same thing for saying these dropped recruits don't end up going on missions. He probably uses that whole shpeal in his recruiting talks (especially with parents). Don't know how effective it is, but it seemed to work this year...